The administration and congressional Democrats agree on the need to update the FISA statute to reflect the realities of 21st-century telecommunications, including the ever-expanding digital world of e-mail, podcasts and text messages.

White House and intelligence officials have sought a broad overhaul of the act to allow spy agencies to listen in on terrorism suspects quickly, without having to apply for a court order, as is required for surveillance that targets U.S. residents. But Democratic leaders say the administration's proposals could lead to broad searches of phone calls and e-mails by ordinary Americans without judicial review....

White House officials complained that Democratic proposals do not give them a crucial tool: the ability to begin wiretapping without having to go to a court. "Every day we don't have [this wiretap authority], we don't know what's going on outside the country," a senior White House official said. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle that tells you 'I'm about to do a truck bomb in New York City' or 'about to do a truck bomb in Iraq,' and it's too late."

The vote was 60-28, so it's clear that Democrats, much as they'd like to put their mark on the legislation, cannot bear to look as though they accept a greater risk of terrorist attacks.

Marty Lederman gives some detail on the failed Democratic proposal, which "the communications privacy community" considered "too conciliatory... going well beyond authorization to exclude purely foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, i.e., far beyond what is necessary to address the problem that the Administration has described."

... Bush held out for the strongest deal he could get, went on TV and seemingly scared some Democrats to go along with him (some other Democrats clearly agreed the law update was needed) since his TV talk centered on how critical it was to give government these new updated tools to protect the U.S. And it worked — indicating a) he still has a lot of clout since he can peel off wavering or sympathetic Democrats so they join in coalition with GOPers and b) if it worked this time chances are this tactic will be used on other high-stakes measures....

Harry Reid voted against it in every way except the one way that mattered: he had the power to keep this piece of shit off of the Senate floor altogether, and to tell the President that when the President started respecting the Constitution and the rights of the American people, then he could start suggesting legislation of this kind... and not dictating to another branch of government what it should pass or when it should recess. And instead, on this, we get "an up or down vote". Jebus.

... [W]e can presume that the D.C. cocktail party circuit is all abuzz about fear of terrrrrrrrrorists attacking Washington any God damned moment... and, unbelievably, Democrats believe that they would be blamed for it. And again, methinks, why was it I worked so hard to get this party in the majority again, so we could get exactly the same results as if they weren't?

I have the niggling feeling that there has been some pretty heavy cocktail and bar-b-que chatter in the capital this summer with the elders warning everyone that something is afoot, but they can't talk about the details. Suddenly the villagers are all acting like nervous cats on a hot tin roof and dancing around like it's the hot summer of 2002 again for no discernable rason [sic].

If that's so and little birdies are whispering in ears, the congress should stay in town and hash this thing out for real instead of signing off on something they haven't read. And if that's so, the president also needs to stay in town instead of rushing off to clear that poor brush again on his "ranchette" set in Waco and negotiate in good faith to protect the American people. The fact that nobody is doing this suggests to me that if there is some fear mongering going on, everyone involved knows it's typical Bushian nonsense but they are afraid to take a chance just in case he gets lucky and hits another trifecta.

No. More. Executive. Power. Period. It's their job to figure out how to track terrorists without trampling on the constitution. If that means staying in town for the month August in that sweltering heat, well, that's what they're paid for.

So much for that "one of the people being listened to needs to be a terrorist" line that Bush kept selling us. Apparently, he never intended that to be the case, and now it isn't. And the more congress permits itself to be rolled, the more Bush knows he can roll them. The man is at 28% in the polls and the Democrats are scared to death of him. Pathetic.

226 comments:

Hmm, an interesting observation. At 15%, Congress is weaker than the President at the moment? Maybe this is the future. The President maybe learning that his job approval is a relative measure. If he is more popular than Congress, then he has a lot of power.

But, lets get real. "Trampling the Constitution" What a crock. The President wants to be able to listen to conversations made by overseas terrorists. It's ridiculous to require a warrant for that. Besides, its a war we are talking about. We are listening to these conversations so we can prevent attacks and kill the terrorists, not to prosecute them.

Ignoring the hyperbolic tantrums of the chickenlittle left for a moment...

Ignorant Separation of Powers question: Congress seems to have oversight powers of the executive branch - ie. they could hold investigative hearings on Dept of Defense or Labor. Why can't the Executive Branch do the same re the Legislative? For example, why not an executive order banning earmarks?

It just seems like the Executive is accountable to the Legislative, but the Legislative is accountable to no one but themselves.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (.pdf) includes most of the predictable numbers — Bush is unpopular, Americans are uneasy about the economy, etc. — but respondents were also asked which party they trusted more to handle various policy issues.

The Dems enjoy huge, double-digit advantages on every domestic issue, but when asked which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither.

In and of itself, that’s not particularly surprising, but the trend is noteworthy.

In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still.

By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether.

Lucky illustrates B's point: some of us are concerned with gathering warfighting intelligence to prevent another 9-11, others are only focused on how it affects their prospects in the next election. Anti-american losers is apt.

I generally avoid Leftist blogs, so it's scary to get a reminder every now and then just how much people who dwell there really are in denial about the threat of terrorism. That anyone would make fun of a legitimate and healthy survival instinct is weird.

Fen said... Midnsteps: Lieberman's comment would make more sense if we were attacked six months ago....not six years ago.

Succesful attacks or thwarted attacks? Perhaps Lieberman knows more about national security than his detractors?

I think it is likely that Liberman knows more about national security than many of his detractors. He probably knows that the nature of the threat is that the terrorists will stop at nothing to realize their grandiose, unrealistically pure religious society. However, he appears, like many of our leaders to have badly misjudged the Iraqi intervention.

I suspect that large segments of the public have differentiated between the self-defeating Iraq war and the need to target the dangerously distorted terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraq decision has actually intensified the pre-conditions that produce terrorism. Thinking we were containing terrorism, the Iraqi war, inadvertently has caused it to worsen and spread.

The Iraq war has also made it more difficult for moderate democrats to separate themselves from the more pacifist democratic base to agressively and intelligently neutralize the terrorist threats around the world. Since attacking Iraq we have made their country much more vulnerable to terrorism now (including state supported terrorism, if they ever become a state) than before the invasion.

If someone wants to fuss over it, they can explain what should be done instead.

Granted, I've no doubt this is simplified as far or even more than possible, but to say that the law, when made, sorted communications into two sorts, wireless and over wire, and that the reason was because of which sorts went on wires and which sorts didn't and that *now* the exact opposite is true, makes sense.

It's *reasonable*.

And it's reasonable to ask Congress to fix the problem.

Now, if someone like those quoted wants to explain in more technical terms why this simplified version is misleading, I'm up to a bit of technical or engineering patios, at least I understand more than I speak, so give me some technical reasons. Talk about what I know about the world my children live in every day which is defined, really, by global communication.

Luckyoldson: you and the rest of the "progressives" were traitors for the entire cold war, were traitors before WWII, and were only not actively treasonous to the country's war aims while they were allied with the interests of the USSR. Now that the "beautiful dream" has died, Shariah is the last, best hope of the nihillists that want to destroy the West and the market, which is why you are doing your best to aid and abet the Salafists, irrespective of their ideology that should anathematisve them to you.

We failed in WWII and in the Cold War by not treating the Fifth Column as the clear and present danger that they were, and we will be delayed in victory, if not suffer outright failure, if we don't deal with them during the struggle against medieval jihadism. Until those who aid and abet Salafism and all other crimes against humanity do the spandau ballet just as their fellow german socialists did at the end of WWII the West will always be in peril.

This FISA exercise is a very bad strategy. Any and all surveillance of jihadis is covered under the post 9/11 AUMF and that for Iraq. FDR's court did horrible damage to the constitution and the country, but at least they respected the president's war powers with their judgements on German spies and saboteurs. We should also abide by the Geneva conventions, rather than run Guantanmo as a sop to the left. The best practice is to question jihadis "vigourously" and then shoot them out of hand as demanded by Geneva. Their should be no quarter for jihadis until they stop sheltering behind civilians and start wearing uniforms. Geneva is supposed to be an incentive for civilised behaviour, rather than another sword for barbarians. But, as always, the Left is determined to destroy civilisation by any means necessary.

Gedaliya asks: "Why is the president seeking congressional sanction for his warrant-less wiretap programs if his motive is not, as you imply, to help protect the nation against its mortal enemies?"

I don't trust this President. He's lied through his teeth from day one, has been caught in flip-flops regarding everything from WMD, nation-building, his Attorney General, the Tillman death and other important matters.

Right now it makes little difference what this idiot does...he'll be remembered as the most inept President in our nation's history.

Hey has it about right. Keep in mind that the jihadists are looking for symbolism. That is why the film their snipers, vbied, ied's, etc. They need the images for recruiting purposes. 9/11 was a symbol for them. They need another in the U.S. to maintain the momentum.

They have patience. Our society has very little staying power and no patience. That is our weakness waiting to be exploited by a patient and deadly enemy.

I don't trust this President. He's lied through his teeth from day one, has been caught in flip-flops regarding everything from WMD, nation-building, his Attorney General, the Tillman death and other important matters.

L.O.S. You and people like you are a dream come true for jihadists who play you like a cheap, out-of-tune piano.

If you are under any delusion that your words do not give support to a demoralized enemy, you are wrong. Consider that the jihadists are reading and reprinting your words, Kos, most democrats, and those that blame bridge failure on the war in Iraq.

They are constantly taking our pulse, so to speak, and making tactical and strategic decisions based on their excellent analysis of your continued use of the word 'idiot'.

Fortunately, they know you don't speak for a majority of Americans. They do depend on you for comic relief from the constant threat of an UAV guiding smart bomb through one of their windows during prayer time. They credit Allah with knocking over the Minnesota bridge not the war in Iraq and Bush. I wonder how they explain the odd smart bomb that sends them to their God?

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation.

He is seeking the authority as he fights the propaganda war in the U.S. He is attempting to get the center left democrats to walk away from people like you and give them cover under the law as they distance themselves from your distraction.

For too long he has wasted valuable time and energy playing "whack-a-mole" with every complaint the left trots out in homage to your one-trick-pony of BDS.

Even as we speak, some jihadist somewhere is looking up the phrase "jerk-off" in his arabic translation book.

I wonder what books Theo Van Gogh was reading when they went all jihad on his person?!

Gedaliya,Here's an example of the G.W. Bush Dick Cheney team in action, and why I do not trust them:

On July 20, the Bush administration took preemptive action designed to mute in advance charges of a cover-up in the likely event that the dispute over present and former White House aides' testimony turns into a head-on collision with Congress.

Top White House officials told the Washington Post that President Bush has the power and would use it to bar the Justice Department from prosecuting contempt of Congress charges against those claiming executive privilege.

This is a highly controversial claim. Mark J. Rozell, of George Mason University, said that Bush's assertion of presidential power "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Harvard professor of constitutional law Laurence Tribe was highly critical of the Bush administration's invocation of executive privilege.

He described it as "promiscuous to the point of being frivolous and dangerous to the survival of the republic," noting that the use of executive privilege to cover up crimes could be an impeachable offense.

By the way, Bush is leveraging Iran by offering military equipment to the secularist regimes in the M.E. Iran has recently threatened to rain missiles down on Kuwait, Jordan, and Israel if the U.S. bombs Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Remember Iran is shiite in a region of secularists. You are overlooking the fact that you observe arbitrary boundaries on countries in the region. The tribes in the area see themselves living within different historic boundaries.

The "whack-a-mole" reference was aimed at the democrats who have vowed to do everything they can to distract and weaken the war effort in Iraq. Their strategy is to keep a constant flow of distractions at the current administration to ensure the war is not won. That is why Reid, et al, keep pronouncing the war is lost.

Notice they are not saying that anymore as they distance themselves from YOU etc., and plan how they can make the good news out of Iraq a result of their anti-war sentiments.

The worst case scenario is that we actually win before the 2008 elections.

You are way out on a limb, as our the democratic strategists. A lot can happen between now and when the first snows close the passes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Starting the primaries over a year in advance of history in the making is a tactical mistake. Obama already blew it by saying he would invade Pakistan and he would not use nukes on al qaeda. He will backtrack on his statements very soon as his ignorance of real politic and established policy are pointed out to him and his advisors.

Here's an example of the G.W. Bush Dick Cheney team in action, and why I do not trust them...

You've made yourself clear regarding the president and Cheney. Yes, I know you think the president is a moron, and that Cheney is a sinister and power-mad Rasputin. Even so, I'm not persuaded that this bill should be opposed on those grounds.

I think that we should be monitoring the conversations of foreign nationals deemed a threat to our national security, and especially if those conversations occur within our telecommunications network.

Moreover, I don't think our intelligence agencies should be required to obtain individual warrants each time they discover an opportunity to monitor a conversation or email.

For no particular reason, I point out that a major pot bust just went down taking $8 million worth of primo weed off the market. Maybe we could talk about capitalism and the effect of less product on the price of mary jane.

By the way, I am subject to the Bush/Rove conspiracy that requires I submit to random drug testing to qualify for my job.

And yet another slur, directed at anyone who disagrees with your point of view...pitiful.

Luckyoldson said (again, with a straight face)...

Again: Bush will be remembered as the worst...EVER...and you idiots continue to support him.

...

Sorry, but I've read too many of your inane comments to think you have the moxie or smarts.

...

Do any of you ever think for yourselves???

The more I read you, the more I realize that you aren't a left troll but a parody troll. I should have noticed it before. Maybe I just give people too much credit. You couldn't possibly believe all the things you say. If you did, your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance.

I am still not quite sure what value Ann thinks luckyoldson and downtownlad bring to these discussions.

I guess she thinks everyone just likes beating on brain-dead trolls, and I admit to occasionally enjoying it. Most of the time, however, it is just plain annoying to have to try to read past their vacuous, nasty, and poisoned comments.

EnigmatiCore said..."I am still not quite sure what value Ann thinks luckyoldson and downtownlad bring to these discussions."

Really?

Being the intellectual giant that you think you are...exactly what do YOU add?

All you ever do is repeat the same damn things 90% of the rest of the right wingers say...over and over again.

There's is very little real "discussion" here. It's almost exclusively conservatives telling each other they're right to support Bush, each and every one of his policies, whether it be wiretapping, torture or executive privilege for anybody he's ever spoken to (even in the Tillman case-anybody care to explain that one??)...and of course, that we'll "win" in Iraq and that all will be good.

Every day, we see where Sloan agrees with Fen, Fen agrees with Hoosier, Hoosier agrees with Vet, Vet agrees with Drill Sgt., Sgt agrees with you, you agree with b, b agrees with rev, and it goes round and round...except when anybody disagrees, then you ALL pile on, slamming the guilty party as being un-American or traitorous.(And all the while whining about how I'm sooooo terrible for calling you people names or say that you're hypocritical or just plain dumb...as if being called a traitor or un-American is okay.)

except when anybody disagrees, then you ALL pile on, slamming the guilty party as being un-American or traitorous

No. We have respect for those who oppose the war in good faith and are willing to discuss in a civil manner. The reason you keep being called out as a Copperhead is because your anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship. You and your ilk place the security of the Democrat party over the security of the Nation.

70% of our citizens isn't buying into Bush's bullshit anymore

Really? 30% of your Democrat Senators just sided with Bush. What do they know that you don't?

Fen says: "No. We have respect for those who oppose the war in good faith and are willing to discuss in a civil manner. The reason you keep being called out as a Copperhead is because you anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship."

Are you actually trying to say that the American publics overwhelming "anti-war position is not based on principle, but on partisanship???"

You think Americans are that simple-minded, that weak? That YOU and others here are all-knowing?

Again, this is why it's impossible to really discuss anything with people like you or Sloan. You're so far to the right you can't see think straight, and you just can't bring yourself to accept the fact that you're flat our wrong.

Fen:"WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants."

I'm glad to see that the left isn't worriedly running at the mouth and making up a bunch of lame excuses for its do-nothing legislative failure. I'm comforted to see that the far-left loons have moved beyond their visionary, unifying strategy: "Bush = Bad." Because that's going to come in handy for the daffy left and for the entire country in 2009.

"Then why didn't he use them, dipstick?? We announced we were coming for weeks on end. Why did he not fire them off, killing as many Americans as possible before being overrun?? Did he forget he had them?"

Interesting question. I wonder why Iraqi generals were being told to be ready to use those weapons when the Americans invaded. Why Iraqi troops were practicing suiting up for chemical weapon deployment. Perhaps Saddam thought he had those weapons but was lied to. Perhaps he was just bluffing. Who knows?

What rights under the constitution does someone who is not an American citizen and is not in the United States have?

"Speaking of "un-American" behavior:Here's an interesting story on how the Bush administration has handled the Tillman death story.http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003621727Rather disgusting, considering the sacrifice of Tillman and his family."

Your link discribes the disconnect of the Army in awarding Tillman the Silver Star and refering to his death from enemy fire on one hand and investigating friendly fire without telling his family on the other. There is nothing in there about the White House having anything to do with it. Which would be your argument should that have been a democrat in the White House.

What rights do all combatants have under the Geneva Convention?Would a Iraqi private captured in battle in uniform fighting American soldiers be considered equal, under the convention as a Iranian wearing civilian clothes in Iraq captured just before he could blow up a school bus full of Iraqi children while hiding among a group of Iraqi women?In a similar direction, how many US military personal have been captured since 2001 and how has their treatment been?I continue to hear how Bush is also tramping over the Geneva Convention, but no one has bothered to explain how. Much like people complain about the patriot act, but never really get into specifics. Every weekend in America local law enforcement will violate the 14th admendment all over the country, affecting far more Americans than anything discussed in this thread, but I never hear about that. Is it because it predates George W Bush?

I suspect that large segments of the public have differentiated between the self-defeating Iraq war and the need to target the dangerously distorted terrorists. Unfortunately, the Iraq decision has actually intensified the pre-conditions that produce terrorism. Thinking we were containing terrorism, the Iraqi war, inadvertently has caused it to worsen and spread.

Not sure I agree with that. There's a recent poll [pew?] showing a significant decrease of Muslim support for terrorism in the name of Islam. AQI has been targeting and killing muslims in Iraq - perhaps that battlefield has demonstrated the shape of things to come for Muslims if they enable groups like AQ:

"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."

dtl: This is pretty scary. We already know that Bush is spying on gay organizations. I'm 85% convinced that my e-mail and telephone calls will now be monitored. That's why I'll continue to vote Libertarian. We all know that Republicans hate freedom. Now it looks like Democrats hate freedom too.

Have you reconsidered fleeing to France? Remember this? -Constitution suspended. Stop. Stormtroopers asking after you. Stop. Hellhounds on your tail. Stop. Rally point Logan International to flee to Paris. Ends

Downtown -- You know what else? There is a little-known codicil in the FISA that gives the Vice President -- Dick Cheney, in this case -- unlimited power to record the sexual activities of gays (and also handicapped people).

Has this been a grand joke all this time? Because that post was a little over the top. Or are you really just a tool?

Jeff says: "Interesting question. I wonder why Iraqi generals were being told to be ready to use those weapons when the Americans invaded. Why Iraqi troops were practicing suiting up for chemical weapon deployment. Perhaps Saddam thought he had those weapons but was lied to. Perhaps he was just bluffing. Who knows?"

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, everybody was prepared, but that damn Saddam forgot all about his WMD.

I'm going to say this just once, Downtown, because I know Althouse frowns on cussing on her blog. However, it is necessary and appropriate here:

Republicans don't give a single flying fuck about gay people and certainly would never waste valuable resources "spying" on them.

But you keep believing it, Downtown. I am going to believe it for myself. I'm sure it makes ordinary phone calls much more interesting.

I bet Dick Cheney is reading this website right now. Hi Dick! I'm on your side. You are way too petty and vindictive at times, but this is a quibble. Please don't take away my freedoms for saying this. Only trample on the Constitutional rights of gays and terrorists in Pakistan.

Here's more info on the Bush Administration spying illegally on Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Very much looking forward to seeing President Hillary spy on right to life and the NRA. Will be fun to watch. And it will all be legal - because the Republicans trampled freedom all for short-term political gains. Hillary is a huge supporter of a strong executive branch with zero accountability to Congress.

I was a Republican you moron and I voted for George Bush (when he lied about being a compassionate conservative). And I left the Republican party and joined the Libertarian party when I was essentially kicked out, due to the venom coming from your party. As has almost every other gay Republican (or former gay Republicans) that I know.

There's a reason the President is at 28% you know.

And if Republicans don't care about WHETHER or not people are gay - then answer me one simple question.

Your link says it has been alleged. Nothing in there remotely verifing it.

Luckyoldson said:"Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, everybody was prepared, but that damn Saddam forgot all about his WMD.

Like I said...right wing morons."

I'm a moron because the Iraqis prepared for use, but didnt follow thru? Is this what passes for debate to you? I have delibratively been respectful in my posts and in return you call me a moron? So your purpose here isnt to sway opinion but to insult and belittle?

DTL said"And since I've already proven that I'm correct about the government spying on gay organizations, it looks like Seven is the tool."

When did you prove this? I followed your link to a UK paper that quotes someone alledging this is the case. It reported them filing a freedom of information act to verify this, but thats it. Your standard of "proof" is very thin.

luckyoldson said"Where's that response to why George W. Bush is protecting those who may have information on exactly how Tillman was killed??"

I responded at 6:56. Your link that you claim supports your comment about the Bush White House handling of the Tillman investigation does no such thing. There is yet nothing to refute.

DTL said"I would hope the Bush Administration would not resort to murder. But why is Tillman's diary nowhere to be found either."

Yes, the Bush administration turned Tillman's team to kill him, steal his diary, report his death as KIA from enemy forces, then almost immediately afterward launch an investigation into it being a friendly fire incident. Just to cover themselves. Or something. Makes sense when you put it that way. Perhaps you can link to a newspaper article from somewhere on the planet to "prove" that also.

Because its a stupid policy that predates the Bush administration and Republican's are "kicking" them out only in the sense they haven't tried changing the Military rules and culture. I agree its stupid. I also think whoever decides to rectify this is looking at a uphill battle.

And another thing, Downtown: I am sorry you were excommunicated from the GOP. I will appeal to the evil overlords to see if you can be blessed by evil and have your Republican voting rights restored. With any luck, they won't make you drink the magic straight water.

Well Jeff - the Republican party supports this and every Republican presidential candidate has endorsed retaining this policy.

Every Democratic Presidential candidate has endorsed removing it.

Obviously, it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to realize that Republicans do care whether or not someone is gay. That's also why they endorse the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas and the re-implementation of sodomy laws that applies to gays only (a policy Bush still endorses).

It's also why the staunch Republicans I know stopped talking to me after I came out of the closet. Boy - that was an eye-opening moment for me.

It was posted while I was typing my previous response, but I did go out and read it. While I would like to know a great deal more about this, I dont see the connection to spying on people due to them being gay. It looks like the article is focused on peace groups and anti war groups. Based entirely on what I read in that article with no understanding in what if anything might have led to this, I would agree that that is wrong and people should be prosecuted. However, I would like to know a lot more about this before I start calling for people heads. Perhaps the enemy has found that attending peace movement meetings is way to subvert monitoring. Seems dubious at best, but I don't know. I would like a lot more information on this. But unless they are spying on the quakers because they are gay, I don't see how this supports your argument.

Seven - Why do the Republicans favor kicking gay people out of the military, or this really don't care whether or not people are gay? Republicans are almost unanimously in favor of maintaining "don't ask, don't tell".

DTL- I have been a Republican since 1980. Most of us dont care one way or the other. As I said, it's a stupid policy. The democrats that now say they will remove it, had eight years to do so and don't ask, don't tell is the result. This is something that in time will change. Not being a one issue voter, I will be voting for someone who represents my viewpoints the most, I don't think there will be anyone running that represents all my viewpoints.

But the idea that there is the block of REPUBLICANS that speak in one voice on every issue, a borg collective of the United States, just isn't true.

Because the military wants it that way. Because gayness offers no special rights under the Constitution. Because well over 50 percent of the populace wants it that way and, when you live in a democracy, them;s the breaks.

We have trodden this ground many times before.

We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection.

Well fine Seven. I believe in Democracy, although I think the Constitution protects the rights of minorities and makes it unconstitutional to have frivilous laws that unfairly target a group of people based on who they are.

But let's just say we live in a country where the Constitution is meaningless and it is all down to majority vote (your wet dream).

I've still proven you wrong. Obviously Republicans DO care whether or not people are gay.

"If you really value freedom and liberty, you should be a little more concerned about the government trampling on our rights all in the name of "protecting us"."

Re-read my post on this. I am no way willing to sacrifice freedom for safety. What I said was I dont know enough about this to condemn.

Furthermore I become much more Libertarian the older I get, but I am not willing to nullify my vote for pureness sake. Even Ron Paul moved to the Republican party for that reason. Where were all of you supporters of the constitution during the 90's? Try telling the cop who holds you up in the DUI checkpoint you object to the violation of the 14th admendment. Or the marshall who confiscates the $5K your taking to Vegas unless you go to court and prove your not buying drugs with it. Or the Sheriff who confiscates your family car because a friend of your son gets caught with a joint in it. There has been a steady erosion of constitutional rights for quite some time, but no one got bent out of shape about any of it until GWB came along. Which scares me because I cant help but wonder if all this outrage will go away should a Democrat take the White House.

Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate. They could change the law if they wanted.

No they can't. First - it would be fillibustered. And second - Bush would veto it.

I've stated many times that the majority of this country hates gay people. Democrats can read polls too, and they are not going to push a law that is seen as gay-friendly, unless they actually think they can get it passed.

I should also add that my Constitution has a 4th amendment, which yours is missing as well.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

(Big Sigh) If I was going to call you a hypocrite, I would have said "DTL, you are a hypocrite. My point stands. The vast majority of people complaining today, were not heard from under Clinton. They will go away under a new Democrat president. Obviously this goes both ways. People defending some things under a Republican will become outraged under a Democrat. And the constitution continues to degrade. Why do you insist on making this personal?

You assumed I was calling you, personally a hypocrite. I congratulate you on your answer. If more people would object to the erosion of our civil liberties no matter who was in charge this country would be a better place. All I know about this current law is it allows eavesdropping on out of country communications? I will research it tomorrow morning and see exactly what it is. As for now, a friend's band is playing tonight and I am firing up the Harley to see if drunk girls still dig bikes. Even if ridden by a Republican

Revenant - the Bush Administration chose to spy on gay organizations - not me. I'm just pointing that out.

And it's entirely relevant to this thread, because the new law allows that. The Bush Administration considers gay people to be terrorists (they can definte "terrorist" however they want), thus they are now free to monitor the e-mail and phone calls of gay people.

Not sure I agree with that. There's a recent poll [pew?] showing a significant decrease of Muslim support for terrorism in the name of Islam. AQI has been targeting and killing muslims in Iraq - perhaps that battlefield has demonstrated the shape of things to come for Muslims if they enable groups like AQ:

I am not sure what to make of the relationship between these polls numbers and the status of global terrorism. For example, world public opinion polls actually have found that more Iranians are against the use of terror than than U.S. citizens "Larger majorities of Iranians than Americans reject terrorist attacks against civilians, though both publics are quite opposed. Asked whether “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” can be justified often, sometimes, rarely or never, 80 percent of Iranians select never. Forty-six percent of Americans say such attacks can never be justified and 27 percent say they rarely can (see http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/307.php?nid=&id=&pnt=307&lb=hmpg1).

On the other hand, recent State Department Reports have found that incidents of global terrorism increased by 25% in 2006 (see http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=April&x=20070425112825idybeekcm0.2628443) and as reported by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269276,00.html). They wrote: "In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released Monday, the State Department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. These strikes claimed more than 20,000 lives — two-thirds in Iraq. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths."

The State Department also reports that Al-Qaida has, in some ways, reconstituted, and metastasized, since our invasion in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban.

Fen....is it your appraisal that the global threat of terrorism has diminished year to year since 911?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Again, Downtown. I blame Bush. It was in 1993 that he instituted "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" by executive fiat, thereby wiping out with the stroke of a pen the rights that gays have had to openly serve in the military since the time of the Magna Carta.

Mindsteps -- Al Queda has every right to exist as a political movement, even in the United States, so long as it abides by the laws of the United States, in the United States. Legitimizing groups that oppose your government and forcing them to work within the contours of established institutions is the only way to defeat groups that oppose your government other than killing all the human beings in the opposition.

Think about that.

As for Al Queda, there have been no serious domestic attacks since 2001. Our soldiers are dying, which sucks, but that is part of the role of a soldier. I credit President Bush's policies.

Revenant - the Bush Administration chose to spy on gay organizations - not me. I'm just pointing that out.

DTL, we already knew you were paranoid. You don't have to point it out, and you certainly don't have to take two dozen posts to do it.

The only evidence you've offered for your claim is an MSNBC article claiming that the Bush Administration spied on, and I quote, "nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests" a year and a half ago. No mention of gays or of gays being targeted, then or now. The only mention of gay issues is in "Pinknews" article, and that consists of nothing more than a reprinted rumor.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain that to you, since you're immune to reason and other people have already tried... but hey.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Six facts:

(A) Rights can exist naturally.(B) Rights can be granted by law(C) Rights can be granted by the Constitution(D) The government can be forbidden from restricting a right, by the Constitution.(E) Rights can be removed or restricted by the Constitution.(F) Rights can be removed or restricted by law, unless the Constitution forbids removing or restricting them.

Amendments 1,2, 4, and 7 do (D).Amendments 3, 5, 8, and 10 do (E) to the government.Amendment 6 does (C).Amendment 9 just says "we've not doing (E) to any rights we forgot to mention here".

A ban on, say, gay sex, does (F). Since the Constitution says nothing about the government being forbidden from restricting the right to gay sex, it may be restricted.

Something important to keep in mind is that a right is not the same thing as an inalienable right. We all have thousands of rights under the law, only a handful of which are protected from government meddling. For example, I have the right to drive my car, but the government can take that away from me.

"DTL was able to rescue the thread from its "Lucky v. Everyone" state by patiently explaining that this topic, like every other topic, is actually all about homosexuality"

Please bear in mind that DTL is in reality a homophobic troll. By framing absolutely every issue, no matter what, as a prelude to gay extinction, he attempts to keep alive the old stereotype of gays as hysterical narcissists. If DTL succeeds in his evil plan, he'll convince everybody that there's nothing that society does that affects gays unfairly.

Give me an outrageous drag queen in fuchsia eyeshadow and 12 inch stilettos or a bare-assed 68 year old man in a leather thong any day. They're better, more positive representatives of the "gay community" than the increasingly incoherent paranoia queen that posts anonymously here under the name "downtownlad".

Now let's see how long it is before she calls me fat! Because, you know, in raging batshit crazy queen land, that's apparently some sort of supreme insult!

Ha! No, I'm a big guy. I mean, I have a fine physique for a 6'1" 300 pound guy, which isn't saying too much.

DTL saw a picture of me somewhere and now thinks that it's SO HURTFUL AND MEAN AND HORRIBLE to call attention to my weight. Which is fine, since it doesn't bother me and it gives me license to call him nasty, juvenile names back.

Of course he does. Just don't use denigrate his sexuality. That's out of bounds. And never question his patriotism.

As an aside, I wonder if any serious academic has ever seriously studied the evolution of sexuality as a class. It's something that has only appeared in the last few decades. It would be interesting. It might give some insight into the next class that will form.

On edit, I add that arguments count; ad hominem accounts are for intellectual pussies. How you look and who you have sex with don't matter. It's interesting, though, that people who screech to high heaven about one kind of insult will actively pursue another.

SevenMachos, I don't understand why people waste mental energy trying to make reasoned comments in response to the DTLs and the Luckyoldsons of the world. The best thing, both for your sanity, your efficiency, and the quality of the comments here, is to either ignore them or pepper them with insults. I find the endless back-and-forth here between the same 3 or four people to be tedious. Nothing is ever accomplished, nothing new is ever said, no one's mid is ever changed.

Mindsteps: Fen....is it your appraisal that the global threat of terrorism has diminished year to year since 911?

No. I would say the global threat has increased, even as the domestic threat has decreased.

But that doesn't necessarily mean Iraq was the wrong battlefield. The surge has AQI on the run, and AQ's tactics have damaged its mystique amoung Muslims - look at how the Sunni have switched sides, right now they hate AQ more than they hate us. I think its similar to the Nazi movement: in its early stages it was attractive to the average German, but once it was allowed to run its course, the "moderates" began to see it as the monster it truly was.

"The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States."

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,'' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. ''I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment,'' which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures."

Well, either the AP or Rep Zoe Lofgren is lying here. I have my suspicions.

Well, it looks like most here would rather blather on about anything but the Tillman situation...right?

Can we all assume that's because you're all so embarrassed by the Bush administration's behavior and your lack of any rational argument as to why the family is being kept in the dark about their son and brother's death?

For a group of people who are so gungho and supportive our military, you show a complete lack of guts when it comes to standing up for rights of the family of someone who gave their life for their country.

And again, I ask: If it was your brother or son...wouldn't you want to know exactly how and why he died??

Considering Continuity Directive 51, as far as the Bush nightmare is concerned, I fear "No End in Sight."

Er...

So you think Bush is going to kill the entire Washington leadership, including himself... so that his cronies can take over the government? That's a special kind of paranoid craziness. You could give Lucky and DTL lessons, and that's really saying something.

vet66 said... "By the way, I am subject to the Bush/Rove conspiracy that requires I submit to random drug testing to qualify for my job"

And up to this point it is obvious you have escaped detection.....someone have to pry a bong pipe from your cold dead hands or something?

Take a deep breath. Take off your uniform. Get some fresh air. Viet Nam is over. The red menace isn't there. .... just calm down some...you sound like an absolute lunatic and you don't want that ... do you?

ohhh and Seven Machos said... "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" by executive fiat, thereby wiping out with the stroke of a pen the rights that gays have had to openly serve in the military since the time of the Magna Carta."

I just read my copy of the Magna Carta. I carry it around just in case I run into some fool who thinks it is our guiding document on military law......

Oh and Sloanasaurus (so much hair-so little brains). .... I don't care who the president listens to. I DO however CARE who Karl Rove listens to.. and therein lies the rub....that is always the rub. But you don't get it do you? In your world it is better to be sloppy and "done" with your work than be thorough and thoughtful and done with your work. Your way may give you more time to fantasize about the latest red menace but your work product has "made in china" posted all over it."

No. I would say the global threat has increased, even as the domestic threat has decreased.

I think the international terrorism will continue well into the 21st century because many of the root causes of terrorism are not being addressed. Among the conditions that encourage terrorism I would include:

Seven, you forget that irony doesn't come naturally to the left. Irony assumes an awareness that a statement may have some meaning beyond its literal one. But fine shades of meaning are lost on ears tuned to the left's high-decibel mode of inflated moral earnestness and shrill outrage. Hdhouse offers a lovely example above.

The fact that you haven't picked up on the fact that it simply hasn't worked is yet more evidence that you are one of the biggest fools on this site.

As for what I bring to the site, I bring elegance, charm, and stunning good looks, all while knocking about the self-important imbeciles on the left and the right who, for reasons that are beyond comprehension, think that they are somehow clever, persuasive, or otherwise engaging. If you had intelligence higher than that of a wet soap dish, you would already have realized that.

It was undoubtedly caused by friendly fire and the perfect storm of war; mechanical breakdowns, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, friendlies who caught up with your position, and a three-burst round that Tillman intercepted as he fell under the first round picking up rounds 2 and three as he fell into the trajectory. The other possibility was unlikely but could have been the three snipers in the following formation that fired simultaneously striking Tillman (unlikely.)

The Tillman family know the best guess in this fog of war scenario. Whether they like what they heard or believe in conspiracies is up to them. The truth can only be surmised with a best guess.

Let's start with the fact ... the absolute fact... that it was friendly fire and known that it was friendly fire right from the start.

Then let's turn it into a propaganda event and surpress the FACT that it was friendly fire which, for some reason, doesn't play well for this administration, and turned into a bunch of nothing for political points and shaping the idea.

Then go to now years of silence and spinning and all that, again for political advantage. then appears Rummy and two lackeys from the military claiming to not know shit about anything...never go up to that level. another case of underlings dropping the ball.

yet one analyst after another says that is all bullshit...that the chain doesn't work that way....

and now come Vet66..ho hum. shot in the head 3 times...shit happens in war. .... pass the scones and can i have a fresh cup of coffee....la di da ... la di da.

t was undoubtedly caused by friendly fire and the perfect storm of war...

Yes, and I wouldn't be surprised if the army botched it after-the-fact. Army officers are human, after all., and they frequently err.

It should also be no surprise that Bush-haters would use this sad incident to gain some (relatively) cheap political profit at the expense of the Tillman family. I'm quite sure most Bush-haters care not a whit for Tillman or his loved ones. In fact, I think it is fair to say that they held Pat Tillman in contempt for his overt and unabashed patriotism and call to duty.

As such, it doesn't serve any purpose to argue about Pat Tillman with those infected with BDS. The disease is, after all, fatal to the reason, sensibility (and most importantly) the sense of humor of what are most probably otherwise sane individuals.

So Gedaliya, let me see if I understand you....Tillman was killed by friendly fire yet that was entered by mistake, yet when it surfaced up the chain of command it was ignored or surpressed...remember the pentagon email to the white house warning the president not to refer to it ....to further embarrass himself...

and then of course they kept the lie alive until after the funeral, memoral services and all the mileage they could wring out of it, then comes the news...now given freely but when they were "found out" and their lie explosed....that was nice...

now it is democrats taking cheap shots at President WooWoo? How about the 3 cheap shots to Tillman's head?

DTL (and sorry to revisit this), Don't Ask, Don't Tell will go away in the future. Probably near future. Maybe it can be maintained for some combat slots, as is the case for the ban on women, though I suspect relatively openly (male) gays will be able to fill combat slots before women will be allowed to.

But I think that those opposing the policy are right to the extent that the justification does not fly for most military jobs. For example, why should it matter at all whether a pilot in a plane was openly gay or not?

I would suspect that the problem right now is that everyone has backed themselves into corners. And because of that can't be seen as compromising on this matter.

And, bringing Cheney into this is quite humorous. By temperament and history he is likely one of the least "homophobic" in the Administration. It just doesn't fit into his Western independent, live and let live, philosophy. Oh, and I should note that he in particular hates lesbians. Oh, I forgot. He has an openly lesbian daughter, whom he is very close to - despite her sexual orientation.

In other words, if you are looking for anti-gay elements in and around the Administration, don't look at the neocons like Cheney, but rather more likely the more fundamentalist Christians. He may be evil incarnate, but he isn't "homophobic".

Now to get to what was I think supposed to be the designated topic, I have found Lederman to be somewhat one sided in this area, and as a result to some extent discount some of his points. Nevertheless, he does very aptly represent one side of this debate.

The suspicion of some is that this bill was in response to a FISC judge refusing to give the NSA somewhat open warrants. If you will remember, this whole matter blew up awhile back, but then fell off the radar scopes of many when the Administration was able to get somewhat open warrants for communications that met certain conditions. In other words, they didn't need to go to the FISC to get a warrant if Osama ben Laden called anyone here in the U.S. because such a warrant would have been automatically triggered by certain conditions. Nice while it lasted, but there is some evidence that a different FISC judge refused to play by these rules.

In any case, the problem all along has been that the FISA warrant process was developed in a different era to face a different threat, and in relation to different technologies. The result is that the FISA warrant process is much too cumbersome to react adequately to the (sometimes) fast paced environment in which it was facing with the NST TSP (and the AG has repeatedly explained why the Emergency Orders provision doesn't solve this problem).

Technically, the main problem is for international calls between an al Qaeda suspect (or possibly person of interest) out of this country and someone here. If the interception were outside this country, there really wouldn't be an issue here, since the targeted person wouldn't be a U.S. person in the U.S. And that was where we were sitting when FISA was passed - that the NSA could eavesdrop on international communications outside this country. They can't any more, or at least not with any sort of thoroughness, with today's technology, notably communications using fiber optics. They must be intercepted in the U.S. at the U.S. hubs tied to the overseas cables. And that changes the legal requirement from a targeted U.S. person in the U.S. to anyone, whether targeted or not, and whether he is here legally, as long as one party is in the U.S., or, even worse apparently, if they might be in the U.S. This later is a new wrinkle, that this FISC judge, or someone else, has pointed out, that FISA warrants are required if there is even a possibility of the domestic non-al Qaeda end of a call being in the U.S. as opposed to actually being here. The problem is that the NSA doesn't always know where a phone is (for example, with satellite phones).

Add to this latest wrinkle that a lot of foreign communications (i.e. neither end is w/i this country) are routed through this country, and possibly surveilled, through a combination of logistics and AT&T working with the NSA. In the past, that was considered outside of FISA. But whenever there is a chance that one end is in the U.S., regardless of how remote that chance, FISA is now arguably triggered. So, now a FISA warrant is needed when al Qaeda hiding in caves in Pakistan calls their people in Iraq by satellite phone, since one end might possibly be in this country. If the NSA doesn't know for a certainty that both ends are outside this country, a FISA warrant is supposedly now needed.

So, it is the combination of a number of factors that has brought this back to the front burner, and hence the legislation.

Realistically though, outside the sort of civil libertarian communities in which Marty Lieberman and Orin Kerr run, I think that most Americans are just fine with revising FISA to correspond with the reality of modern technology and the international threats we are facing. So far, under the Administration's interpretation of the current FISA, there have been no verifiable instances of anyone in this country being surveilled by this program, nor any information gleaned through the TSP ever having been used against anyone in court. In short, no harm, no foul.

So Gedaliya, let me see if I understand you....Tillman was killed by friendly fire yet that was entered by mistake, yet when it surfaced up the chain of command it was ignored or suppressed...remember the pentagon email to the white house warning the president not to refer to it ....to further embarrass himself...

So, apparently there is some reason that because Tillman's chain of command was reluctant to admit that he had died from friendly fire, that the TSA shouldn't be revised to conform to modern technology and threats. I am not quite sure of the logic there.

Of course, Congress is on board for this. It is a no brainer for most of them, and those opposing it are likely no brainers themselves.

The problem for the Democrats here is first that no one in the U.S. has really been harmed by the TSP. But if the Democrats had managed to kill the FISA changes, and as a result, shut down the TSP, then the next time that there is a terrorist attack on the U.S. (and I am sure there will be one some day), many would question whether it could have been prevented if the TSP had not been gutted. And, in the end, any Democrat voting not to amend from a swing district would be out of office, and the Democrats in Congress relegated to a minority for the next generation.

Not a chance that very many were willing to take, esp. if there were even a small chance that their district might go Republican. Ever. That the Democrats opposing FISA modernization got as many votes as they did, is evidence more of the powers of gerrymandering safe districts than anything else.

Gedaliya said... Like I said, it doesn't pay to argue with individuals who hate George Bush, even on Sunday morning."

No Gedaliya...I don't like liars. i particularly don't like liars whose lies are surrounded by death and interwined in killing. That Bush lies is a given. I dislike him intensely for it. You should too if you were honest and not connected to him by the hip.

I just wonder where your threshold is....what would it take Bush to do for you to say enough of this?

That the Democrats opposing FISA modernization got as many votes as they did, is evidence more of the powers of gerrymandering safe districts than anything else.

I agree with this statement. I believe the Senate vote more properly resonates with the current national will regarding the issue.

Even so, I'm bitterly disappointed, once again, that my representative, Steve Israel, Democrat (2nd District, Long Island, NY), voted against the bill. The 2nd District is only recently in Democratic hands, Israel having replaced the hapless Rick Fazio, the loser to Hillary in the 2000 Senate race.

Israel votes Pelosi 100% of the time on the question of Iraq. He is a full-fledged member of the surrender caucus. Unfortunately, these votes are unlikely to hurt him here in the 2nd district, which has gone from red to blue with alacrity over the last few years.

No Gedaliya...I don't like liars. i particularly don't like liars whose lies are surrounded by death and interwined in killing. That Bush lies is a given. I dislike him intensely for it. You should too if you were honest and not connected to him by the hip.

Most everyone lies, to one degree or another. Everyone rationalizes. You must hate a lot of people.

It is interesting, however, to watch how you express yourself. You can't bring yourself to say "I hate George Bush." You instead say that you "dislike him intensely."

However, you do say that you "hate liars," and that "Bush lies is a given."

Well, here is a Buchanan piece that makes his case that Cheney is a neocon. It is easy enough finding examples of any number of major paleocon figures dissing Cheney as one of the chief architects of Bush's neocon foreign policy.

I read the piece. He actually makes the case that he disagrees with Cheney on war with Iraq. Looking at Cheney's history from when he first went into public service, there is no way he could be described as a neocon. He has always been a conservative. Buchanan has drifted way right into caricature conservatism. Paul Craig Roberts appears to have become a truther which casts doubts on pretty much any other opinion he has.

OK, I read that one too. What part of the statement itself do you think is strictly neoconservative? You can be old school conservative without being isolationist conservative. There are topics that neo and old school conservatives overlap.

With all that's happening in Iraq...people here are debating whether Cheney is or is not a "neocon??"

What difference does it make if the decisions he's been involved in have resulted in the mess we have right now?

If he was merely a conservative or really a neocon or even a moderate...we still have what we have:

Iraq’s power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage of infrastructure, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.

Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said.

Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.

Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

“We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having,” said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.

Then let's turn it into a propaganda event and surpress the FACT that it was friendly fire which

See, the part I don't get is where the Left thinks that was a bad thing to do.

Were I killed by friendly fire, I'd much rather my family be told I died heroically in combat with the enemy. Dying from friendly fire, like any other accidental death, is just too meaningless and tragic. I'd rather my family think I died for an important reason.

Then there's the propaganda issue. Better to emphasize that some of our troops are heroes than that some of our troops make mistakes. But then the Left generally considers making America look worse than it is to be praiseworthy and making it look better than it is to be criminal, so maybe that's why they don't like the propaganda angle.

(1): increase defense spending(2): strengthen ties to democratic allies and challenge regimes hostile American interests and values(3): promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad(4): preserve and extend an international order friendly to American security, prosperity, and principles.

Conservatives have been advocating all four of those things for the last sixty years. There's nothing "neo" about them.

and what organization it represents:

Guilt by association? Does this mean I can hold Hillary Clinton accountable for every loathsome statement that appears on DailyKos?

First, let me say that I am a neo-conservative and a strong supporter of both the PNAC and the president's foreign policy.

The statement I referenced elucidates the mission of the Project for a New American Century. It is the founding document of the organization. It is signed by the luminaries of the neo-conservative movement, including Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., all of whom I (hope) you accept as part of the neo-conservative brain trust.

Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were among the signers of this document. On that basis alone I think it is safe to call them both neo-conservatives, a label I suspect both wear with honor and pride.

Ann Althouse came to my attention via some remarks by Jay Nordlinger. She's certainly as appealing and entertaining as he said she'd be. There's nothing like a smart woman with a good sense of humor.

I've been around enough to know about characters like Lucky, whom I suspect is a pretty normal fellow until his id lets loose within the confines of Internet anonymity. No matter. He likes to clown around, and most of us like to watch clowns work.

"Musharraf has been the target of intense criticism since a U.S. intelligence assessment reported last month that al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents were operating freely along Pakistan's porous, mountainous border with Afghanistan."